W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > August 2010

RE: to publish new WD of Access Control Use Cases and Requirements; deadline Aug 31

From: Nilsson, Claes1 <Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:00:02 +0200
To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com" <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
CC: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6DFA1B20D858A14488A66D6EEDF26AA32D5C174AC5@seldmbx03.corpusers.net>
Looking at http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus, the table and column "Remarks" for Widgets 1.0 Requirements. It says:
"This is a non-normative document (i.e. contains no testable assertions)...."
However, when looking into the specification it is clearly normative. For the main part, section 4 Requirements, it is stated "This section is normative.", and normative upper case keywords are used. 

Yes, confusing. 

I quickly checked some other W3C requirement documents and they were all informative.

Either our doc is clearly informative or clearly normative. If a specification contains at least one normative statement the specification is normative, there is no middle way. 

Claes



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:tlr@w3.org]
> Sent: den 31 augusti 2010 15:27
> To: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
> Cc: Thomas Roessler; Nilsson, Claes1; public-device-apis@w3.org
> Subject: Re: to publish new WD of Access Control Use Cases and
> Requirements; deadline Aug 31
> 
> It's something that one would normally explain in the status of this
> document section.  In the case of widgets-reqs, that's not done very
> clearly.  Something along the following lines should do:
> 
> > "This document is not normative.  The Working Group expects to evolve
> this document further and will eventually publish a stable version as a
> Working Group Note."
> 
> Cheers,
> --
> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>  (@roessler)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 31 Aug 2010, at 15:22, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
> 
> > As another data point, the Widgets Requirements document is non-
> normative yet uses capitalized MUST language for requirements. Seems to
> make sense to specify requirements with that language since they are
> "requirements", but I understand the concern.
> >
> > http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/
> >
> > I didn't find any guidance in the W3C Manual of Style or Process
> document.
> >
> > regards, Frederick
> >
> > Frederick Hirsch
> > Nokia
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 31, 2010, at 8:44 AM, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston)
> wrote:
> >
> >> Claes
> >>
> >> I'd expect this to be an informative note.
> >>
> >> I think we should publish since it represents an update from what we
> have had previously, but publishing should not stop contributions and
> continued work on it.
> >>
> >> regards, Frederick
> >>
> >> Frederick Hirsch
> >> Nokia
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Aug 31, 2010, at 7:50 AM, ext Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I still think that there are much vagueness in the document. This
> especially applies to section 3 on "Trusted Widget or Application" use
> case. We really need more discussion on this use case. Furthermore, I
> am not 100% convinced that this should be a normative document.
> >>>
> >>> However, as said before, public publishing may be a way to get
> wider feedback so I can say +1, not because I feel comfortable but to
> (hopefully) get more flesh on the bones from people outside of DAP.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Claes
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-
> apis-
> >>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
> >>>> Sent: den 25 augusti 2010 16:45
> >>>> To: public-device-apis@w3.org
> >>>> Cc: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
> >>>> Subject: CfC: to publish new WD of Access Control Use Cases and
> >>>> Requirements; deadline Aug 31
> >>>>
> >>>> On today's call we discussed publishing an update of the "Device
> API
> >>>> Access Control Use Cases and Requirements" in the spirit of
> publish
> >>>> early and often.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a call for consensus to see if there are any objections to
> >>>> publishing an updated WD of the Device API Access Control Use
> Cases
> >>>> and Requirements document (last published 29 June 2010).
> >>>>
> >>>> The draft can be read at:
> >>>> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/policy-reqs/
> >>>>
> >>>> This draft  is a clarification and update to the previous
> publication
> >>>> reflecting our recent discussions. Publishing an update should
> give
> >>>> this wider visibility and enable others to see the progression of
> the
> >>>> work.
> >>>>
> >>>> Where CfCs are concerned, silence is considered to be assent, but
> >>>> positive support is preferred (even if simply with a +1). Please
> send
> >>>> feedback by next Tuesday (Aug 31).
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks!
> >>>>
> >>>> regards, Frederick
> >>>>
> >>>> Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
> >>>> Co-Chair, DAP WG
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2010 14:00:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:12 GMT